Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 11 July 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Talkback

04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Karen Armstrong

Do an edit like this again on Armstrong's page and make another ad hominem attack on me to go with it and you can find yourself reported to AN/I.Sleetman (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, I've raised the issue of the legitimacy of edits to Armstrong's page here. You're welcomed to join the discussion (if you wish to do so).Sleetman (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read Ad hominem. You may find it enlightening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is probably a little closer to an ad hom. Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really an ad hominem either, though it's certainly rude. To provide an editing-related example (because the examples in the article are fine, but not about editing), "Your edit is wrong and you're a n00b" is rude, but "Your edit is wrong because you're a n00b" is ad hominem. The characteristic of ad hominem is that it attacks an argument based not on its merits but on the person making it. The More You Know! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but doesn't the statement "your views are unimportant" imply that they're unimportant because you are ? Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. Perhaps I have an overly formal view of the fallacy. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All I can see is Sleetman being unreasonable and rude. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ad hominem" Ah yes, Remember it well from Latin Class "against the man" one of the rare uses of the Latin adverb "ad" to mean "against" as it usually means towards (directionally) as in "ad nauseam!" Roscelese - At least YOU are ONE person who can express herself perfectly in the Lingua Franca of the English-speaking people - English! SimonATL (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

SBA POV

Thank you very much for this edit. I had no idea that article was harboring a POV spinoff of the SBA dispute for sooo long, getting it all wrong by following the wrong playbook(s), ignoring the scholars. Grrr! Your removal of that text shines like a ray of light. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem! I was happy I ferreted it out. (Well, that's not strictly true, I came across it by chance, but there's enough contention at the three or four articles that cover that dispute without spreading it to an article where it doesn't even belong.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:The Decemberists

Category:The Decemberists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing the move, again

• Please see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Closing the move, again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

thankyou!

I'm a rather peripherally involved in Trans Media Watch and one of the members attempted to establish its article today. I've been in a tizzy all afternoon trying to work out if/how I could remove the spam tag - as you noted, it clearly isn't. Wondering vaguely if the speedy delete nomination may have been transphobia-inspired, I do hope not.

Anyhow, ta. I was just about to start trying to work out how to find an experienced 'proper' Wikipedian to ask for help and then... voila! Here you are. Many thanks.

Becca Beccaviola (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You'd have been allowed to remove the tag - it's only the article creator who isn't allowed to remove it. Also, you and the creator might want to check out WP:COI if you are members of the organization - if you're just members rather than employees, etc., it shouldn't be a problem, but give it a look-over anyway. Good luck! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

re "others"

Do you have in mind an admin who you think is both fair but is also familiar regarding your participation within WP. I shall be asking the same of Haymaker, since I feel that having a good admin who can assist a party in conducting the interaction ban is better than having a "panel of three" sitting in judgement - any discussions between the admins will then less likely leave the editors out of the loop. Once we have all the parties in place I can then circulate the proposed wording of the interaction ban - taken from one of the previous ones I have adminned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Would you prefer that I ask said admin or that you ask them? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you thinking about? - Haymaker (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it best that I approach them officially, but there is nothing to stop you from making inquiries of them whether they would be willing to be approached. The admin will also have to be acceptable to Haymaker (and vice versa for Haymaker's choice). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Action of December 1669 GAN

Talk:Action of December 1669/GA1 - on hold for an initial seven days, mainly to do with adjusting the use of a primary source. SilkTork * 11:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I watch the Milhist page, so no need to ping my talk. Thx anyhow, tho. :) TREKphiler 05:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for the help! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rossini's Moïse

Should Rossini's Moïse go in Category:Paris Opera world premieres? I was going to add it, but then hesitated. It may not be totally a world premiere. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And what about Donizetti's Les martyrs? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would create redirects from the French title if such do not already exist, and put the category on the redirects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. The information on either may eventually be split off from the article onto the redirect page, and it will also make clear in the category that the French versions are meant. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Joe Wiegand Article

OK - so where are we on this article? I have added additional information to the article, expanded external links into the article as well as links out of the article. I do NOT work for the guy but I have seen him, myself, and he does an excellent job and has portrayed TR in all 50 states. He's also, as you know, portrayed TR at the White House and commercials and has been widely recieved everywhere. Q

Question. So HOW is this guy insignificant or why are you still proposing the article be deleted? What else do you need to remove the "candidate for deletion" tag. What are your primary remaining objections. How many people do YOU know who have portrayed one of the top 5 US presidents in all 50 States and the White House. How is THAT track-record insignificant or unexceptional to you? Do you have something against Theodore Roosevelt, the White House, Bush II (I'm NO fan of his, believe me - astonishingly incompetent). Please let me know your remaining issues/questions. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's wonderful that you're so enthusiastic about him, and I agree that he sounds like he'd be interesting to watch. However, in order to have an article on Misplaced Pages, a person generally needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If you wish to object to the deletion nomination, you can vote here. Please bear in mind that, unlike a proposed deletion where an objection by any user can halt the deletion, the article may still be deleted even if you vote to keep it unless better sources are added. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I put these comments on the wrong page as you pointed out. I can see from your user page that people like George W. Bush (whom I think was the least qualified person for the Presidency in the 20th Century) and the proverbial quintessence of macho jingoism, Theodore Roosevelt would have little appeal to you. I personally admire about TR is NOT all that Macho BS (it was par for the times and he was NOT all "hot air" (wading into the middle of a pack of hunting dogs and stabbing a mountain lion thru the heart to keep the dogs from tearing the mountain lion to pieces is not some mere hot air excercise) BUT - for the fact that he was prepared for the job. Why this seeming war on Wiegand and, perhaps, by extension, TR? I do not work for Wiegand nor am I affiliated with him, but I have seen him and he does TR very well and he's portrayed TR in all 50 states. Compared to tens of thousands of totally un-sourced and outright factually incorrect articles on Misplaced Pages, this article on Wiegand covers the the subject material. I've been on Misplaced Pages for years, myself, we both know one can use Misplaced Pages to make war on any article or editor a person pleases. These "wars" can be direct or indirect or can be wars of attrition, too. I do not want disputes on the Wiegand article to escalate. I think we've pretty much put to rest the "non-notable" candidate for deletion topic. Come on, this guys notable by[REDACTED] standards and there are 3rd party news papers that discuss him. When that "not notable" tag was challenged, why would you feel compelled to resort to additional tags - primary sources, etc. Can't we keep things on the up-and-up. Perhaps you don't "like" TR or this Wiegand character or anything that they represent - fine. This is also not 1904 either and thankfully, the World has turned. The era of "only" so-called "strong men" and "weak compliant women" has ended. My daughter is 18 times undefeated in Tae-kwon-doh, in WA and OR state, 2d in the State of WA in women's wrestling and wants to go to the US Naval Academy and become a fighter pilot. She's a perfect e example of how doors have opened up and a woman can be whatsoever she strives to be. Yes, the world has changed but TR remains a product of his era and Wiegand portrays that man and his era very well and a Misplaced Pages article on him is totaly appropriate. Your thoughts - here or elsewhere? I've opened this up on the Wiegand article discussion page, also. Thanks SimonATL (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, okay, cool story bro, it's great to see women doing martial arts (I have a purple belt in jujitsu myself)...anyway, I've got no particular beef with Teddy Roosevelt, and I'm not sure why that of all things is the explanation anyone would leap to. (Racism/jingoism a bad thing, but trustbusting a good thing - like many admired historical figures, he wasn't a saint, but nor was he a devil.) Thanks for your efforts to remove more padding from the Wiegand article. What would also be good would be to begin integrating the newly found references (the ones mentioned at AfD) into the article, since, as I said, it still has only a) coverage of his performance at the WH and b) self-published and otherwise non-independent promotional material. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove as much padding as possible. There's just way too much on a re-read. Good suggestion about incorporating more of the 3rd party materials. My time is very limited right now, but I'll get at it ASAP. TR WAS a product of his times, to be sure, an amazing bundle of contradictions, trust-busting Republican! The guy is proof, for me, at least, that the Party of Lincoln did NOT have to descend into the Right Wing "stand-pat" reactionary ultra-conservative thing it morphed into. The Party was NOT founded as the "Conservative Party" but as an anti-slavery party uniting Whigs and Democrats and signaling the end of the Whig era. Anyways, I'll get on with the Wiegand thing as time allows. Please consider removing the "not significant" flag because I think we've pretty much established that. Check out a video on him some time - the guys really amazing. Maybe he's beginning to "think" he's TR! Haha. By the way, I'm a member and a trustee of the Theodore Roosevelt Association and sure enough, we have members who were named by their own parents after TR, such as Theodore "Ted" Roosevelt Kramer, a retired Navy Pilot, and a couple others like that. Too weird! Finally, there are like 4 people who reprise TR and I've met 3 out of 4 of them. This Wiegand guy, by far, is the best. Clay Jenkinson who's a Rhode's Scholar at Dickinson State and who also reprises Thomas Jefferson and Merriwether Lewis also does TR quite well. He's runner up. SimonATL (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't currently a notability tag on the article. There's a tag requesting more citations in general (because BLP articles need to be very well cited, and this one conversely has very, very few citations) and one requesting more third-party sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GAN review of Action of Dec. 1669

Thanks for taking this up! I look forward to hearing your feedback. (And thanks for the virtual cuppa on your talkpage! :D) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you're not watching the GA review page, I replied there with some questions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you think you could respond to my questions about which places need more citations or seem like original interpretation? I'd like to fix those within the seven-day deadline, but I need a bit of guidance as to which the problem areas are. (I also posted at MH about the title and got a suggestion which works for me, but I'm going to wait another day or two before moving it, since it's been moved a lot.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look now. SilkTork * 12:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied. SilkTork * 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Action of Dececmber 1669

Regards :)
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Fellure

Why can't you discuss things on the talk page like a reasonable person?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning, referring to Misplaced Pages policies, to the Prohibition Party's lack of status, and to the absence of coverage in reliable sources. You removed the notability tag with the edit summary "nope" and expanded on this reasoning by citing a policy erroneously. Now you can see if other people at the AfD agree with you, based on the merits of the article rather than on your belief that I didn't discuss it to your liking. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take things personal on wikipedia. I was wrong to remove the tag with such an edit summary, but I later clarified my position on talk page. That is where discussion should have occurred. An AFD was not the best course of action.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. You are, of course, welcome to make your best case there for keeping the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability of species?

I believe you, but is there a place on WP policy pages where I can find a discussion of notability of species? Had I known about it, I would not have PRODed the article. I, Jethrobot 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a policy page for it, but every AfD I can think of for a species has closed as a strong keep, consensus apparently being that a species is notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Cádiz (1669)

I was hoping to pass this tonight, but as I worked my way through it I encountered another misreading of the primary source. Misplaced Pages articles must be factual and reliable. So I have failed it. Once you have worked your way through the material and made absolutely sure that nothing that is said in the article is a mistake or a possible interpretation, then please resubmit. SilkTork * 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, hopefully the next time I submit it I'll also have the time to respond to criticisms (work...as I can edit from my phone, but not put sources side-by-side, draft text, etc.) Something I'd better keep in mind. Thanks for all your help. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Quran miracle

Are you sure this page was deleted via AFD in the past? I can't find any proof of that. JDDJS (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It was titled Quran miracle, see WP:Articles for deletion/Quran miracle. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I see now. JDDJS (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDs

Hi Roscelese, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Misplaced Pages and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the admin or non-admin status of an AfD participant does not matter to me. (Unless by "referee" you mean the person who closes the discussion? I think the non-admin closure process is pretty sound, too.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, the "referee" I mentioned refers to the person who closes the discussion. Intuitively, it seems that admin referee is more persuasive than non-admin. But your point is also worth taking into consideration. Bluesum (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin closures work because non-admins can't delete anything and are instructed not to close any discussions that don't show a clear consensus. For any contested decisions, there's also the deletion review process. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Roscelese,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 11:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Speedy deletion declined: Quran numeric miracle

Hello Roscelese. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Quran numeric miracle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4 is only for an article recreated after being deleted at AfD. This one is now at AfD, but I see no record of any previous AfD or deletion. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossed paths

We seem to have crossed paths with the sock puppet investigations. I opened one with Quran Information (talk · contribs) as the master, as that account was created first. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh. I've never done an SPI before and I just went after the first one I remembered encountering, but I think you're right. *facepalm* If you add to your SPI the users on mine that you're missing, I'll speedy delete mine. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Roscelese (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=As I explained at the noticeboard, the first revert of which I was accused was not a revert but rather the implementation of a compromise between myself and the user with whom I was disputing, in which we agreed that neither of us would get the version of the text we'd been trying to insert (see ], where JP says "Maybe we should say simply 'ex-priest'."). Blocking a user for trying to resolve a dispute through compromise, instead of just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting again - for discussing the issue with the other user, finding a solution on which we can both agree, and implementing it - sends a poor message about the purpose of 1RR, suggesting that users should simply wait for the time to run out and make their edit again, rather than trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, as I did. ] (] ⋅ ]) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=As I explained at the noticeboard, the first revert of which I was accused was not a revert but rather the implementation of a compromise between myself and the user with whom I was disputing, in which we agreed that neither of us would get the version of the text we'd been trying to insert (see ], where JP says "Maybe we should say simply 'ex-priest'."). Blocking a user for trying to resolve a dispute through compromise, instead of just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting again - for discussing the issue with the other user, finding a solution on which we can both agree, and implementing it - sends a poor message about the purpose of 1RR, suggesting that users should simply wait for the time to run out and make their edit again, rather than trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, as I did. ] (] ⋅ ]) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=As I explained at the noticeboard, the first revert of which I was accused was not a revert but rather the implementation of a compromise between myself and the user with whom I was disputing, in which we agreed that neither of us would get the version of the text we'd been trying to insert (see ], where JP says "Maybe we should say simply 'ex-priest'."). Blocking a user for trying to resolve a dispute through compromise, instead of just waiting for the 24 hours to expire and then reverting again - for discussing the issue with the other user, finding a solution on which we can both agree, and implementing it - sends a poor message about the purpose of 1RR, suggesting that users should simply wait for the time to run out and make their edit again, rather than trying to resolve the dispute through discussion, as I did. ] (] ⋅ ]) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

July 2011

I was just asked to review a recent talk page post of yours. This is highly inappropriate and very immature. Don't do it again. -FASTILY 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock